B2Tall, The Nation is a very big Country, with 50 States and 311 Million Citizens. The SCOTUS Position is that State Laws can find a balance of a Citizens Right to Bear Arms and the ability of the State to protect its interests. The Heller Decision is clear in that matter. That sensitive areas such as Schools, Courthouse's, Etc. can be excluded and that other perimeters can be created, such as a back ground check, no felons, mentally ill or people who pose a known threat to somebody, I.E. somebody who has an order of protection issued to them, to stay away from someone else. The State of Wisconsin is not like Florida, so some variation of the Laws are to be expected. You have your views and I have mine, all I can tell you is that I believe in our Court System, our Constitution and our Country.
Illinois Ban on Concealed Carry is coming to an end!
- Thread starter Dan Cox
- Start date
Lethaldosage47
New member
Dan Cox:320490 said:
I sure do hope you are right. Hopefully doesn't take 10+ years to get this done!
B2Tall
Stirrer of the Pot
That's all fine and dandy but it doesn't answer the question I put to you: Why do you believe SCOTUS is going to ultimately overrule the state and local governments of IL/Chicago on this issue (CC/OC) when, not only have they never done that before, they've supported state's (and city's) rights to make those decisions themselves???
It seems as though your boundless optimism has blinded you to the fact SCOTUS is just fine with places like NJ, HI, NYC, and others having highly restrictive firearm laws. You're also ignoring the fact that ultimately it's the voters who elect (and continue to elect) anti-gun state and local governments in these places.
Wishful thinking and optimism are great but there has to be a point where common sense and facts come into play. I would love to see CC/OC allowed in every state and city, but I'm not one to wear rose-colored glasses.
B2Tall, It is called the Fourteenth Amendment, and it clearly states all of the information that you have requested. The Fourteenth Amendment, is one of the many reasons, I believe in the Constitution, being one of the Greatest Documents in the World. It appears that you Sir, are not a Constitutional Scholar or a person knowledgeable in the Law, so why stir the pot about things you do not understand? As far as Elected Officials... we have two Governors in Prison and a group of Democrats from Chicago that are as Left Wing as anybody. The Court has the power to Trump the City of Chicago and Illinois and the Constitution to do it with. You can be all negative and doubtful if you want, I believe in the system our forefathers gave us to correct a wrong, and I have been an active participant in it, from Marching on Springfield with IGOLD to being in direct contact with Rep. Brandon Phelps, HB0148 is his Bill for Concealed Carry. I am proud to be a part of the movement to correct a wrongful violation of our Constitutional Rights. I will be remembered by my Kids as a man that fought for their Rights and I believe it will not be a futile effort. If I am wrong, you win and we ALL lose!
B2Tall
Stirrer of the Pot
Well, at least you didn't tell me you were going to hold a candlelight vigil to solve all our problems. Or that you're going to close your eyes and wish really, really hard for carry in IL......but to be honest with you, that seems to be the whole basis for your statements.
You're right, I'm not a constitutional scholar. I can say with 100% confidence that you're not either. In case you weren't aware, the 14A has been around for quite a while and SCOTUS has yet to use it (or anything else) as a pretense to force CC/OC on any state. I think you're the one who doesn't really understand how the judicial system works. Regardless of what a lower court decides, you can be sure that the powers-that-be in IL/CHI will appeal it right up to SCOTUS, also known as "The Highest Court in the Land". And SCOTUS will say what they've always said - it's up to the state and local governments to decide carry issues. Therefore, any decision by a lower court that forces IL/CHI to allow carry will be overturned.
Wisconsin is an excellent example. Until you and the other citizens of IL elect pro-2A leaders to office (a la WI), all the wishing and positive thinking and sloganeering and flag waving isn't going to bring CC/OC to you. And you're not going to get any help from the 9 folks wearing robes in DC. In the end I wish you all the luck and good fortune in the world with your pro-2A endeavours.
Deanimator
New member
I don't have high hopes, but if Illinois does get concealed carry, it will ONLY be through the courts, NEVER through the legislature.
If the 2nd Amendment means something different in Chicago from what it does in Tinley Park, does that mean that the 13th Amendment means something different in Mississippi from what it does in Maine?
Rhino
New member
I don't think that's what the appeal is about. U.S. District Judge William Stiehl dismissed Shepard vs Madigan by saying that the 2nd amendment didn't apply to "bearing of a firearm outside the home". Presumably that would include your own yard. The appeal, as I understand the case, isn't attempting to directly overrule any state or local statutes on carrying firearms. It's to grant a ruling that the 2nd amendment does apply outside the home so the original case, Shepard vs Madigan, can continue to be heard. I agree that the SCOTUS is unlikely to directly overturn state or local laws on carry. However, they can, and have with Heller and other cases, ruled on what lower courts must consider when deciding these cases and remanded those cases back to those lower courts for reconsideration. In that regard, Heller, along with other precedents, could indeed have a significant impact.
Deanimator, You miss the point, if we let Chicago have more Restrictions in how Concealed Carry is allowed there, the rest of the State will not have to live by those same restrictions. I.E. No Concealed Carry allowed in a Bar that serves Alcohol in Chicago, No Concealed Carry on a City of Chicago Beach or Pier. The Balance is a key factor, and yes 400,000 people on a Lakefront Beach in Chicago is different from a 100+ person gathering at a Tinley Park Lake, so the ordinance would need to be adjusted to meet the facts of the situation. If you want to have a weapon with you that can kill or injure innocent people if used inappropriately, you have to live within the parameters of a balanced approach to serve public safety as well as your own.
Deanimator
New member
No, I didn't miss anything.
If the 2nd Amendment means something different in Chicago than it means in Oak Lawn, why doesn't the 13th? What you're doing is rehashing the Rudy Giuliani "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment, and I'm merely asking you the same question I asked of his supporters (maybe you were one of them).
No concealed carry on a city beach or pier? Where do you think so many "flash mob" attacks took place last year in Chicago?
"You can carry anywhere you're unlikely to need to!" seems like a REALLY bad "bargain".
Deanimator, You can't carry legally at all now... that is a really bad bargain. But if you want to fire off rounds with no regard for what is behind that flash mob that is attacking somebody, then I wonder how you are going to justify the innocent deaths and injuries of all those by standers. We can use other weapons to defend ourselves in close quarters, without harming the innocent bystanders. I would rather fight a flash mob with only my hands and get killed doing my best, than be responsible for the death of an innocent person. Your logic is not sound when you consider the consequences. Do you know how to use your hands, feet and other potential weapons on your body? If you shoot a guy, that is unarmed...
Deanimator
New member
You would rather die than defend yourself. I support your right to make that choice.
You WON'T make it for ME.
You clearly lack fundamental knowledge necessary for those who would own or carry firearms. You should educate yourself, starting with the concept of "disparity of force".
Rhino
New member
That's a rather unfair stretch of what he said. No two situations are ever exactly alike, regardless of where they are. You can't tailor different laws for different locales because you can never predict what might happen. Besides violating the principle of equal protection, you could easily kill more people than you protect. Given the statistics on guns used by private citizens in preventing and thwarting crime, that's actually more likely going to be the case. Places that allow preemption end up with a mass of patchwork laws that are impossible to keep track of or to understand. And before you try saying this would only apply to Chicago, the ink wouldn't be dry before some other cities or towns were clamoring for the right to the same thing. Once you open Pandora's box, you won't be able to shut it again. And an 80 year old grandpa can't be Mr Kung Fu like you possibly could. Does that mean he has less right to protection?
Deanimator
New member
Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.
B2Tall
Stirrer of the Pot
OK buddy. You just keep basing your legal "expertise" on shooting stars, four-leaf clovers, and leprechauns at the end of a rainbow. You seem to have no need of facts and long-standing legal precedents.
B2Tall, Where are your facts and data to support your negative position. What case has come before SCOTUS for Concealed Carry before? What part of the Fourteenth Amendment do you not understand? The Second Amendment Foundation has been very successful in the Courts. So what makes you an expert, what have you done to promote Concealed Carry? Yes, I do have a fondness for four leaf clovers, I'm part Irish!
You don't know, what you don't know and it will always be what you don't know that hurts you!
fudo
New member
So, which other of your rights do think the government should require training on, before they let you use them?:bad:
You know Dan, you are damn right. I like it...thanks for the reply.
OldLlama32
New member
Speaker Madigan dragged his feet on the concealed carry bill for Illinois, so it did not come up for a vote yet. Now they are on summer break. What an idiot. Too much power and a personal agenda is my opinon.
